NM Court Says Gay Marriage Constitutional Because Gays Can Responsibly Procreate and Raise Children
Claiming that "same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples," the N.M. Supreme Court found on Thursday that gay marriage is legal under the New Mexico Constitution.
"We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law," Justice Edward L. Chavez wrote for the N.M. Supreme Court.
The other four justices on the court concurred with the opinion....
Jim Lincoln wrote: John Y., Mormonism provisionally accepts the Bible as the Word of God and in certain ways believes in the atonement of Christ.
No Mormonism doesn't believe in the atonement of Christ because they don't worship Jesus as God, they don't believe that Jesus is God. So stop making statements about Mormonism that they believe any historic Christian doctrine. There is not one historic Christian doctrine that Mormonism believes in.
John Y., as it has often been pointed out to you, Should Roman Catholicism really be classified as a Christian religion? -- No.. From this article I quote, "Merely having some degree of doctrinal orthodoxy does not, by definition, prove a religion is Christian. For example, in Church history, certain unorthodox or hereti¬≠cal sects have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and yet denied other cardinal doctrines of the faith. Today, Jehovah‚Äôs Witnesses believe in the inerrancy of the Bible far more consistently than Catholics. Yet, no one argues they are Christian but themselves. Mormonism provisionally accepts the Bible as the Word of God and in certain ways believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet no religion is more anti-Chris¬≠tian." ---Mike Gendron, so what is one to expect from a state that very Roman Catholic?
Dear Mike, You ask, "Does this judge even have a clue how stupid his statement is? No knowledge of biology?" Sure, he has a clue. Sure he has knowledge. What this judge is doing is called "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness"-- an act, Paul says, that provokes God's righteous wrath and judgment.
(Justice)Chavez wrote that "it is not clear what the opponents of same-gender marriage mean by 'responsible procreation,' ... ." In the next sentence, though, he uses the term "responsible procreation" without defining what it means for the court: "Same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples."
Does he even have a clue how stupid his statement is? No knowledge of biology?
"same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples," Man+Man does not equal child. Woman+Woman does not equalchild Man+Woman=Child in a holy sanctified marriage. God desires to save these men and women and they will get their rights to do what they want. But our God is a God of life and the problem with the sin of homosexuality is that it does not produce life. So homosexuality produces death to the one in it and to the society that allows it so freely.
"We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights"
I didn't know that the Constitution legalised moral decline.
Eph 4:17 ... as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:"
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us"
Talk about willful blindness! Obviously, a homosexual couple cannot 'procreate' without the use of a third party providing a necessary missing component for conception to take place-- a component which the couple cannot provide for themselves. I suppose people will argue that that is no different than heterosexual couples using modern technology to overcome infertility. But it is wrong for society to deny to children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, and it is wrong for society to encourage surrogacy and sperm donation as a 'business enterprise,' in which people are encouraged to conceive children for whom they take no personal responsibility. Every child has a natural right to be raised by the mother and father who conceive them and bring them into this world. They also have a right to receive the input of both a male and female parent. Situations that fall short of that divinely ordained pattern should not be held up as a perfectly 'normal' and exemplary pattern of family life. For any society to overthrow the natural right of children to be raised by their biological parents by creating a system which deliberately produces abnormality is to engage in high-handed rebellion against God and the order of family life He has ordained.